Alright. For the covert/not thing, I think people should be given the option as to whether their subvert/support is visible. I think if you announce your support/subvert, it should be visible to everyone. This would give a reason why you wouldn't announce your support in some cases, like if you don't want the public to know you're supporting whoever.
I think there should be a skill, perhaps a guildskill for the thieves, that lets you go 'spy rabek' and it'd show everyone Rabek is supporting and subverting, or an amount based on the skill roll. Perhaps it costs gold to use, perhaps just MV, whatever balances.
Now, for the support -slots-, I find it kind of odd that gentry get extra support when nobles do not. Yes, gentry have to be rich to be gentry. Nobles, however, even if they aren't rich or if they're untitled, have influential contacts. Support, as I see it, doesn't represent money alone. It represents your social network, and nobles can generally count on a wide social network, even if they aren't politically powerful. Really, the only thing gentry have over the general public is a degree -or- wealth, and I don't think you can even earn degrees anymore without the scholars. Why not just let everyone with wealth get an extra support slot?
Support
I'm agreed that ideally, there would be the option between covert and overt support and subversion. However, I'm also of the opinion that there should be inherent advantages to being overt- you're putting everything on the table, so you should get a little something back. One idea is that visible support and subversion is more powerful, or rather, perhaps covert support/subversion is halved (or 2/3rded or whatever value you want to use) to reflect that. You choose not to operate in the light of day, and so your ability to support or subvert is thus somewhat hampered.
Hmm, right now if PlayerA and PlayerB both say they'll support Someone, Someone doesn't know the overall value of those players to make a decision.
This said, perhaps the trial and error approach is realistic? You have to work to figure it out and take clues based on the world around you, and dammit, you can get it wrong. Step on the wrong toes, etc?
I'm not against inserting some sort of spying command or skill.
Rabek - gentry are by DEFINITION powerful people in their own right who do have money and connections. Nobility are just people with titles. Often, over generations, they've squandered their family's money and those titles are empty rights over a land that may even be more of a burden in mouths to feed than any strength. That's not always the case, and in the cases where noble titles and power converge, you have aristocracy. We don't define aristocracy on TI - we leave that up to RP. But the flat out fact is that gentry have more money (we give them 2x what nobility get a week) and more social power (the ability to support more people). It's a judgment call as to whether or not someone wants to be either, but gentry shouldn't be viewed as the poor cousin of the noble.
I think that's happened on TI because titles are seen as 'legitimate' power, and there's really nothing more to the game than those titles to prop up and support the difference. Only with this sort of social game added to TI's basic structure do we actually be able to realize the truth about what gentry are supposed to be thematically.
This said, perhaps the trial and error approach is realistic? You have to work to figure it out and take clues based on the world around you, and dammit, you can get it wrong. Step on the wrong toes, etc?
I'm not against inserting some sort of spying command or skill.
Rabek - gentry are by DEFINITION powerful people in their own right who do have money and connections. Nobility are just people with titles. Often, over generations, they've squandered their family's money and those titles are empty rights over a land that may even be more of a burden in mouths to feed than any strength. That's not always the case, and in the cases where noble titles and power converge, you have aristocracy. We don't define aristocracy on TI - we leave that up to RP. But the flat out fact is that gentry have more money (we give them 2x what nobility get a week) and more social power (the ability to support more people). It's a judgment call as to whether or not someone wants to be either, but gentry shouldn't be viewed as the poor cousin of the noble.
I think that's happened on TI because titles are seen as 'legitimate' power, and there's really nothing more to the game than those titles to prop up and support the difference. Only with this sort of social game added to TI's basic structure do we actually be able to realize the truth about what gentry are supposed to be thematically.
Nobles, however, are given precedence over gentry. This, in and of itself, gives them more direct power. In addition, if a noble has a title, they have lands under their control, giving them taxes. If they have an actual noble title. If they don't, then they are related to someone with an actual noble title. No gentry whatsoever, I'm fairly certain, can match the social/financial backing of an entire province.
Yes, the help files (even back when gentry included non-inheriting noble children) mention that some nobles have nothing more than a title, but that makes no sense. A title means a province. A duchy, county, barony, etc. Nobility without a title means you're related to someone with a title. It is not feasible to me that a noble would not have wealth or power, given that fact, unless they were disowned, in which case they are no longer noble.
I'm not disputing that gentry should be powerful. They just shouldn't be more powerful than someone with an entire land to their name by -default-. Maybe good RP could give them more, like some merchant empire or something, but just flat-out having 'gentry' status, -especially- with how easy you're proposing gentry be to earn, should not be enough to grant more power than a noble.
Yes, the help files (even back when gentry included non-inheriting noble children) mention that some nobles have nothing more than a title, but that makes no sense. A title means a province. A duchy, county, barony, etc. Nobility without a title means you're related to someone with a title. It is not feasible to me that a noble would not have wealth or power, given that fact, unless they were disowned, in which case they are no longer noble.
I'm not disputing that gentry should be powerful. They just shouldn't be more powerful than someone with an entire land to their name by -default-. Maybe good RP could give them more, like some merchant empire or something, but just flat-out having 'gentry' status, -especially- with how easy you're proposing gentry be to earn, should not be enough to grant more power than a noble.
Staff can't create RP for people, but we still have to create the structure of the game. That structure includes gentry, and gentry players should be going in RPing that they have a merchant empire or something equivalent. That's their right for purchasing the class.
Having the backing of a province does imply power, yes. But being gentry also implies power, just for different reasons. The relativity of that power versus noble power is hard to really put a finger on or compare because they're powerful for different reasons in different spheres. But, if we don't codewise put something there with specific benefits that people pay for, then it doesn't exist. Period. Since nobility is a matter of bloodline, that'd mean people create out-of-the-box into a role of power or non, and never have an opportunity to move from one to another. A game without advancement is, in our eyes, a poor game. Thus the birth of gentry.
It appears that you don't agree with our representation, but that is the theme and framework of the game, because it is best for the game in our opinion for game design reasons.
Having the backing of a province does imply power, yes. But being gentry also implies power, just for different reasons. The relativity of that power versus noble power is hard to really put a finger on or compare because they're powerful for different reasons in different spheres. But, if we don't codewise put something there with specific benefits that people pay for, then it doesn't exist. Period. Since nobility is a matter of bloodline, that'd mean people create out-of-the-box into a role of power or non, and never have an opportunity to move from one to another. A game without advancement is, in our eyes, a poor game. Thus the birth of gentry.
It appears that you don't agree with our representation, but that is the theme and framework of the game, because it is best for the game in our opinion for game design reasons.
I'm not sure where you're going with this. Gentry should be more powerful than nobles because that provides more opportunity to advance? Nobility is ranked -higher- than gentry. With your proposed method, there is nothing to gain and a lot to -lose- by becoming nobility. If you want people to desire to rise above gentry status, you need to provide a reason to do so.
In addition, this is the default. There are always special cases, but with this setup, the -default- is that all nobles are powerless and moneyless with 'nothing' but a title. Implying a title is near worthless. With this setup, the -default- is that any single gentry can out influence any single noble, period.
And you provide no mechanism for changing this default other than getting the support of other PCs, no matter what you RP about your background.
Nobility is more expensive and harder to achieve than gentry status. Making it worse than gentry status, both mechanics and RP wise, is a poor gameplay decision and poor balance.
In addition, this is the default. There are always special cases, but with this setup, the -default- is that all nobles are powerless and moneyless with 'nothing' but a title. Implying a title is near worthless. With this setup, the -default- is that any single gentry can out influence any single noble, period.
And you provide no mechanism for changing this default other than getting the support of other PCs, no matter what you RP about your background.
Nobility is more expensive and harder to achieve than gentry status. Making it worse than gentry status, both mechanics and RP wise, is a poor gameplay decision and poor balance.
I don't really know where to start in reply to this. "Nobility is nothing but a title because that's what it is codewise" ignores so much social power, precendnt and theme as to be a statement that I simply cannot agree with. Money is also not mutually exclusive to nobility, they get quite a lot. All in all,I'm just not sitting anywhere near the above view. If nobility were indeed worthless, people would prefer to play something else, and even with those benefits assigned to gentry, and with the xp bonus for freeman, people still flock to play nobles and fight to icly achieve nobility.
Rather, I tend to view the gentry vs nobility benefits as a "I want my cake and to eat it too" sort of thing. I might be wrong, but in the years I've been around TI, I still haven't seen anything to dissuade me of that view.
Rather, I tend to view the gentry vs nobility benefits as a "I want my cake and to eat it too" sort of thing. I might be wrong, but in the years I've been around TI, I still haven't seen anything to dissuade me of that view.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 78 guests